HIGASHIMARU FEEDS INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an importer of fish meal and it is challenging Ext. P 4 public notice dated 9-7-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Ext. P 5 notification dated 17-10-2001 issued by the Central Government and Ext. P 6 public notice dated 21-1-2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The brief facts of the case, are the following:

(2.) The import of livestock to India, is governed by the provisions of Livestock Importation Act, 1898. S.2 (a) of the Act defines the expression 'infectious or contagious disorders' as including tick pest, anthrax, glanders, farcy, scabies and any other disease or disorder, which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. S.2(b) defines livestock as "livestock includes horses, kine, camels, sheep and any other animal which may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette". The Parliament has amended the Livestock Importation Act of 1898 by Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001. The definition 'livestock products' has been incorporated in S.2 of the Act as S.2(d). The said definition reads as follows: "Livestock products includes meat and meat products of all kinds including fresh, chilled and frozen meat, tissue, organs of poultry, pig, sheep, goat; egg and egg powder, milk and milk products' bovine, ovine and caprine, embryos, ova, semen; pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product which may be specified by the Central Government by the notification in the Official Gazette." A new Section, S.3 A has been added to the Act, enabling the Central Government to regulate, restrict or prohibit import of any livestock product into the territories of India, which may be affected by any infectious or contagious disorders. In exercise of the power under S.3A, Ext. P 4 notification has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs, restricting the import to India livestock products, including pet food products of animals. In exercise of the power under S.2(d) read with S.3A, the Union of India notified that the livestock products shall cover products, eggs and seeds of all aquatic animals, including fish, crustaceans and molluses and import of them have been made, subject to the issuance of Sanitary Import Permit. By Ext. P 6 notification, the Commissioner of Customs informed all importers and Custom House Agents that import of aquatic products, like fish meal, can be made only with a Sanitary Import Permit from the competent authority and subject to clearance by the Animal Quarantine Officer, Chennai.

(3.) The petitioner, who is an importer of fish meal, in view of the above notifications, is bound to obtain Sanitary Import Permit and clearance from the Animal Quarantine Officer, Chennai, to import fish meal. Therefore, it is constrained to challenge Exts. P 4 to P 6. According to the petitioner, the inclusion of fish or fish products in the livestock products, is clearly unauthorised by the provisions of the Livestock Importation Act, 1898. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the statement of objects and reasons for the introduction of the enactment. Reliance is also placed on the Preamble of the Act, to show that it was enacted to govern the cargo of horses and similar domestic animals. Though S.2(d) defines livestock as including pet food products of animal origin and any other animal product, which may be specified by the Central Government, it cannot be taken that the said provision will enable the Government to notify as livestock products, something totally unrelated to livestock. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Maheswari Fish Seed Farm v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board (2004 (2) RC 791), to contend that livestock will not include fish. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: